Thursday, October 25th 2018 PSC

The students as partners model (Healey et al., 2014; 2016) can challenge us to reflect on how we work with students in a variety of areas including scholarship of teaching and learning, curriculum design, open educational resource development and open pedagogy. “Partnership is a specific form of student engagement, with very high levels of active student participation. Partnership is a way of doing things, rather than an outcome in itself” (Healey et al., 2016: 2). In spite of the emphasis on process, the students as partners literature also highlights a host of impacts on both student and faculty. Roisin Curran (2017: 2-3) for example, draws from the wide body of students as partners literature and highlights the following student outcomes: “development of the learner leading to better citizens, …enhances motivation and learning, …improves teaching and classroom experience …improves learning in terms of employability skills”. We believe that both process and outcomes matter but if we want to foster a culture of learners, we must pay more attention to the embedded power hierarchies in the students as partners relationships because hierarchies of power and privilege can impede our partnerships and the learning of both faculty and students. Exposing the hierarchies of power means we can work towards the kinds of learning outcomes identified in the students as partners literature but with a more nuanced, equitable, and culturally appropriate approach. Working as a team of four, including students, faculty and staff, and building on existing work by critical educational theorists (see Andreotti, 2012; Freire, 2005) and feminist scholars (see hooks, 1994; Lather, 2007) we present an educational framework using the word ‘POWER’ that examines the dimensions shaping power relations in partnership. We describe the framework and provide questions for each aspect of the framework to prompt an enhanced awareness of the dimensions shaping power relations in partnership. Lastly, we engage in a dialogue about the framework by drawing on our experiences navigating power in partnership and include parts of that dialogue in our paper presentation.

Student-faculty pedagogical partnerships have been recognized for their potential to contribute to the development of inclusive learning cultures in higher education. Partnership is predicated on, and grounded in, values of respect, responsibility, and reciprocity (Cook-Sather et al., 2014; Healey et al., 2014) and aims to engage students and faculty/staff in processes of ‘radical collegiality’ (Fielding, 1999). As such, it offers spaces in which faculty and students can occupy non-traditional roles and work in more equitable ways. Scholars have also noted that partnership holds particular promise for combatting injustices faced by members of marginalized groups on university campuses, demonstrating how it can contribute to the development of more culturally responsive classrooms and/or recognize the knowledge of students from equity-seeking groups (Cook-Sather & Agu, 2013; deBie et al., forthcoming). Given these possibilities, many have suggested that partnership has the potential to transform universities into more democratic, egalitarian learning communities (Cook-Sather & Luz, 2015; Matthews et al., 2018).

In spite of this potential, some have worried that many partnership opportunities are themselves rather exclusive (Felten et al., 2013; Moore-Cherry et al, 2016). Moreover, much research exploring the radical possibilities of partnership has focused substantially on student experiences, and/or on destabilizing hierarchies that exist between students and staff. Though clearly important, this focus overlooks the fact that different faculty/staff members have different experiences in the academy, and many of these people themselves navigate discrimination, injustice, and precarity (Pittman, 2010; Martinez et al., 2017). Without attending to the diverse experiences of differently-located faculty, then, partnership scholars risk reifying homogenized understandings of faculty/staff experience and overlooking ways in which partnership might reproduce or intersect with marginalizing and oppressive practices even as it counters oppression on other levels.

This session will present preliminary findings from a study that contributes to addressing this gap in the literature. Drawing on a survey of, and follow up interviews with, faculty/staff at institutions with pedagogical partnership schemes, the project explores how faculty occupying different social locations perceive the call to engage in pedagogical partnerships, interpreting these findings through the theoretical lens of intersectionality (Collins & Bilge, 2016). We pay particular attention to the extent to which participants view partnership as contributing to (and/or detracting from) efforts to make campuses more equitable, thus offering further insight into this growing area of partnership scholarship and generating discussion of relevance to the ‘inclusive learning culture’ conference thread.

In SoTL we often talk about “the big tent” metaphor, but sometimes being heard from one side of the tent to the other is a challenge. Like other disciplines, SoTL requires us to “go public” by sharing our work (Shulman, 1998; Felten, 2013). Unlike other disciplines, however, going public in SoTL is “a cross-disciplinary conversation” (Huber & Morreale, 2002), and navigating this polyglot conversation with clear and engaging writing is a tall order. In her ISSOTL17 plenary, Helen Sword challenged SoTL practitioners to write “to the heights and from the heart,” to write with the same energy we bring to our work and the same animation we bring to our conferences.

Unfortunately, reading academic writing is often like eating stale bread: dry, tough, and bland. Sword argues “stylish” academic writing is essential and helps our work “have the greatest possible reach and impact.” Given SoTL’s goal to effect change, we publish to be read. But most academic writing, according to Sword (2012), drains, overtaxes, and often bores readers. Decades of scholarship have baked dense meanings, ideas, and abstraction into carefully sculpted disciplinary writing repertoires. At best, readers outside a discipline must perform mental gymnastics to read, re-read, and make sense of such writing, while more commonly, they are left confused, tired, disinterested, and even resentful. Even disciplinary insiders can flounder reading poorly written text. Making readers work harder than necessary—or worse, making them stop reading altogether—decreases SoTL’s reach and impact.

We are five scholars from different disciplinary backgrounds (education, literature, nursing, sociology) who come together to support each other’s writing. Like other writing groups, we provide each other structure, accountability, and support (Grant, 2006), but more specifically, we see ourselves as a (micro)culture that learns (Mårtensson, Roxå, & Stensaker, 2012), and we crave growth as writers within a cross-disciplinary conversation that deserves to be read. Adapting the “teaching squares” (Berenson, 2017) structure for peer observation of teaching, we have formed a “writing square.” Its framework includes four components: 1) a writing think-aloud, 2) a reflection, 3) a mini-workshop, and 4) a follow-up. Unlike traditional writing groups, our writing square shifts the focus from critiquing others’ work to reflecting on our own work. We aim to make writing “community property” (Shulman, 1993) where how we communicate about teaching and learning is woven in the fabric of SoTL. Join us to discuss writing in SoTL and writing squares!

Building on Felten’s (2013) work, we explore how collaborative partnerships, through an international writing group, develop and foster networks for scholarly input, reflection, and contributions to SoTL outputs. In so doing, we discuss how we have built a collaborative learning culture for SoTL by challenging our philosophies and experiences through writing partnerships. Felten elucidates five pillars for SoTL that serve to scaffold the value and impact for SoTL output: (1) inquiry into student learning, (2) grounded in context, (3) methodologically sound, (4) conducted in partnership with students, and (5) appropriately public. Taken together, these five principles can be guideposts for developing and refining individual SoTL inquiries and larger SoTL initiatives.

Our session explores the dynamics within our collaborative SoTL writing group that came together in Hamilton 2011, moved apart to consider a range of scholarly outputs, and reconvened in Calgary 2017 to share experiences, renew friendships, and reflect on past memories and expectations. In 2017, at the Calgary ISSoTL conference, we explored metaphors pertaining to mountain peaks and reaching new heights. As a group, we engaged in debates around travelling and travellers and sought to understand the value of our journey both individually and collectively. Whilst the formal presentation documented our journey, an informal meeting after provided opportunity to question our purpose and future growth, whilst acknowledging the strength and continued support within the group. This experience prompted a renewed vision to continue the narration of our experiences and map our future expectations. Through our collaborative enterprise and experience we ask: How does a group that formed over five years ago on a common interest of wanting to explore SoTL scholar identity operate within individual, institutional, and international contexts? What is the value and impact of the group? This group has enabled a micro-community of practice to explore themes and threads in and through the SoTL landscape by celebrating successes yet simultaneously being cognisant of differences in views, direction, and output.

We invite new and experienced SoTL inquirers and practitioners to join our ongoing journey in exploring challenges within higher education through a SoTL lens. The authors will present international perspectives on what being part of a SoTL writing group means beyond the simple output of scholarly work. We conclude our paper presentation by examining how expectations for future collaboration stem from individual and collective experiences.

 

The theories that underlie reflective teaching practices consider the teacher as a critical and reflective intellectual and understand teaching practice as a contextualized social and professional practice (Wyss, 2013). The consideration of reflective practice can be traced from the ideas of Dewey (1998), Schön (1990), Guiroux (1988), Beauchamp (2015), etc., and in the university context, among others, from Brockband and Mc Gill (1998), and Kreber (2013). They all agree that reflective practice is a systematic attitude with regards to analysis and assessment of the teachers’ own practice to design new strategies that can positively influence their teaching.

Engaging in reflexive practices is one of the main goals of the academic development programme at the Zurich University of Teacher Education. As part of the 10 ECTS training programme in Higher Education, in the past 12 years over 500 participants have been developing a reflective portfolio in which they demonstrate a sound philosophy of teaching and learning as well as evidence on competent teaching by compiling “artefacts” and reflections (Seldin, 1993; Bachmann, 2015). In recent times, we have moved towards more disciplinary programmes for single university departments and implemented a scholar approach to teaching and learning (SoTL) in the format of small-scale research studies.

This contribution presents the first outcomes of a study whose aim is to understand and provide evidence of the reflective processes of our participants as exposed in their portfolios and projects. In the research study we have:

– adopted a concept of reflexivity and a model of reflexive practice to analyse portfolios and projects of participants in a training programme;

– created a tool to analyse the reflective process of university teachers in a training;

– examined the components, scope and level of reflection appearing in portfolios and projects. We are developing a coding scheme based on a combination of features of several models (e.g. Van Manen, 1992; Fund, Court & Kramarski, 2002; Larsson, 2015);

– conducted individual semi-structured interviews at the end of the academic development programme.

In the presentation, we will introduce our analysis tool and the first results of the study. Furthermore, we will outline the determined elements that constitute a good reflective process in teaching practice.

 

In the literature on teaching and learning many examples are found of how reflection can be used for learning and development. Some of them deal with how teachers can gain insights about teaching and learning through the writing of a teaching portfolio (e.g., FitzPatrick & Spiller, 2010; Jones, 2011; Trautwein et al., 2015). However, studies on what such insights may actually bring into teaching practice are scarce. Our intention was therefore to explore what impact teachers’ writing of a teaching portfolio can have on their practice and professional learning (Pelger & Larsson, 2017; Pelger & Larsson, 2018).

The study was conducted through a questionnaire, where 26 academic teachers answered open-ended questions about the possible insights, effects on teaching practice, and effects on collegial exchange that the portfolio writing entailed. The teachers came from three faculties at Lund University – Engineering, Science and Social Science – and, as a preparation, all of them had attended a workshop on portfolio writing. In their responses, a majority of the teachers reported on insights they gained through the writing of a teaching portfolio, and how these insights contributed to changes in teaching practice. Some of them also described changes in their collegial exchange and the way they talk about educational issues with colleagues.

In our presentation we will show examples of the impact that the teachers experienced that the writing of a teaching portfolio had. Based on Kreber’s (2002) three competence levels – excellence, expertise and scholarship of teaching and learning – we will discuss how the impacts reflect academic teachers’ professional learning and development. We will also discuss the potential of using reflective portfolio writing as a tool for change in an emerging academic community of practice characterised by a scholarly approach to teaching and learning.

Outcomes-Based Teaching and Learning (OBTL) is a policy at a research-intensive university in Singapore, which articulates what teaching and learning should look like by the year 2020. This paper examines the extent to which such a policy has changed teaching and learning mid-way through its implementation.

Based on principles of constructive alignment, OBTL uses “twin principles of constructivism in learning, and alignment both of teaching and assessment tasks to the intended learning outcomes” (Biggs & Tang, 2011, p. 108). The central idea is for faculty to write intended learning outcomes that focus on “what and how students are to learn, rather than on what topics the teacher is to teach” (Biggs and Tang, 2011, p. 97). We believe that this shift may stimulate a change from knowledge transmission to student-centred approaches to teaching.

In this study, we seek to investigate if the OBTL policy can change faculty’s approaches to teaching. This policy requires every faculty to submit their course outline (syllabus) for internal review, using a standardized format designed by the university to reflect principles of constructive alignment. Given that top-down policies sometimes lead to faculty resentment and superficial compliance instead of actual change, our main research question in this study is: What is the impact of the OBTL course design approach on faculty’s approaches to teaching?

Using the Approaches to Teaching Inventory (Trigwell & Prosser, 2004), our survey results (N=90) show that this study affects different disciplines differently. For the science disciplines, there is a statistically significant decrease in knowledge transmission approaches (p < .05), whereas in the humanities and social science disciplines, there is a statistically significant increase in the student-focused approaches (p < .05). These results suggest that faculty who have experienced the OBTL course design process exhibit a change in their approaches to teaching, but the nature of the change is influenced by the courses or disciplines they teach.

In this session, we will share our approach to promoting a culture of teaching and learning through the OBTL initiative, and report our findings on the extent to which a one-size-fits-all standardised course outline can influence faculty’s approaches to teaching across disciplines. During this session, we will balance the presentation of our findings with audience discussions on the broader topic of implementing Outcomes-Based policies in higher education.

Strategies for teaching and learning will often include recommendations for changes in orchestration of teaching, and therefore put constraints on faculty to follow guidelines provided (Laksov, Mann and Dahlgreen, 2008). Despite an increased emphasis on strategic plans for teaching and learning, there is little evidence that well-intended strategies actually become implemented as planned (Gibbs, Habeshaw and Yorke, 2000, Newton, 2003). The practice of teaching and learning remains remarkably traditional. In this paper, we investigate how strategic plans refer to teaching and learning and how educational leaders and academic developers understand and enact according to these strategies. We analyse strategic plans and interviews with educational leaders at different levels at two universities, including leaders at the macro-level (educational top-leaders and administrative top-leaders), meso-level (educational leaders as pro-deans for education and heads of department) as well as micro- level (leaders of the unit of academic developers) at two Norwegian universities. We focus on how the selected strategies emphasise teaching and learning. Which values, beliefs and moral responsibilities are upheld as important and how is teaching and learning addressed? In the interviews, we explore how leaders and academic developers understand and enact according to the strategic plans for teaching and learning at their respective universities. Do leaders and academic developers know the content of these strategies? Do they have an ethical commitment to the strategy at their university? Can we recognize these strategies in the way leaders and academic developers prioritize and work with development of teaching and learning?

The findings indicate that a chain of leaders needs to follow up the implementation of these plans. Well-intended strategies needs leaders that take actions to secure the strategic intentions within the different levels of the institutions. We find that strategic plans have a potential to create rooms for learning, but whether it is translated into actions or becomes just strategic rhetoric for educational leaders depends on how they are translated by leaders and academic developers within the institution.

Information literacy (IL) is both a discipline and transdisciplinary skill (ACRL, 2015). Its transdisciplinary and context-dependant application, as well as its theoretical underpinnings, make it a natural fit within the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL). IL is broadly defined as the ability to search for, select, critically evaluate and use information for solving problems in various contexts (ACRL Framework, 2015; SCONUL 7 Pillars, 2015). Previous decades of expansion and diversification in higher education - with a growing interest in research on teaching and learning (e.g. SoTL), along with the rapidly changing information landscape – has highlighted IL as an important academic skill. IL is a vital skill for graduates’ employability, lifelong learning, and for being an engaged and informed citizen. Today, this conversation has been reinvigorated due to the rapid misinformation spread via social networks and the Internet. This panel is comprised of three librarians from three countries who will talk about how IL is viewed in different national contexts in North America and Europe. The panelists will outline how different national and institutional contexts affect how IL is viewed, highlight the importance of disciplinary context and how faculty approach IL, discuss how IL can be embedded into curriculum, and point to the dominant IL frameworks currently being used. The panelists will also summarize some of the common critiques of IL instruction and make an argument for why IL can be enhanced through SoTL research approaches. Time will be set aside, near the start of the panel, for participants to discuss how information works in their discipline (including creation, distribution, and evaluation) and how they teach IL skills in their classroom. Following an overview of the dominant IL frameworks and different national contexts, the panelists will lead a more general discussion about how these frameworks apply or do not apply to the participants’ disciplinary contexts. Constructivist approaches on learning IL have replaced instrumental pedagogical views inspired by behaviorism and its focus on generic and decontextualized skills. Learning is seen as constructed from learners’ own experiences and understandings of the object of teaching/learning. A social and contextual constructivist pedagogical view is put forward by researchers such as Vygotsky (1962) and Lave and Wenger (1991) who argue that learning is embedded in and part of social, ideological and physical contexts, situations and environments (e.g., academic disciplines). In IL research, such communities of practice are studied in information and learning practices (Limberg, Sundin & Talja, 2013) stressing IL as a context-bound and transdisciplinary skill and not only as a discipline in itself. The specific practices of both information and learning mean that instructors can reinforce the separateness of information and not support a cohesive understanding of information practices and environments. Much of the discourse around IL revolves around the situational context in which these skills are taught. There is evidence that curriculum embedded IL instruction is more likely to promote long-term skill development (Rosman, Mayer, & Krampen, 2016). Learning can be maximized when information literacy is underpinned by theory and taught contextually. This means that instruction needs to be tailored to the program, course, and assignments. While there are established threshold concepts (Christensen, 2015; Townsend, Hofer, Hanick, & Brunetti, 2016), a critique of IL scholarship is the overabundance of local, institutionally specific, and practice-based studies not rooted in theoretical literature. Through a SoTL lens, IL and its influence on learning is better understood. Furthermore, IL research can be strengthened by borrowing some of the established methodologies and linking research to theory. From this panel presentation, audience members will learn about the variance in approaches to IL instruction and why national, institutional, and disciplinary context is so important. Through discussion, participants will connect how SoTL studies can help faculty understand the nature of IL in their context and what IL skills their students possess and still need to learn. Studying IL through a SoTL lens has the potential to greatly aid the higher education learning community in understanding differences in how IL is contextualized, based on the differing international information landscapes. Panel session learning objectives:

• Define information literacy in the context of their discipline;
• Develop ideas for how information literacy could be integrated into their discipline and taught;
• Identify how approaches and practices in SoTL can support and undergird information literacy theory and skills in various learning cultures.

Finding and evaluating information is a critical skill in higher education, regardless of the disciplinary, institutional, and national learning contexts. This panel session will provide an argument why teaching information literacy skills is everyone's business, and will get participants to think about how how information literacy is relevant to their own disciplinary context. Throughout the session, participants will have opportunities for dialogue and discussion about information literacy in their discipline and cultural context. Specifically, time will be set aside, near the start of the panel, for participants to discuss how information works in their discipline (including creation, distribution, and evaluation) and how they teach IL skills in their classroom. Following an overview of the dominant IL frameworks and different national contexts, the panelists will lead a more general discussion about how these frameworks apply or do not apply to the participants’ disciplinary contexts. By rooting information literacy skills within SoTL, attendees will develop new ideas for integrating and teaching information literacy skills.

The integral idea of SoTL is the systematic and public reflection about teaching, learning, and all that comes with it. One central issue is omnipresent: what contributes to a successful learning process of our students? This simple question generates a multitude of mental concepts, theories, approaches and assumptions. SoTL is dedicated to bring them all to the light and foster a sound and scholarly discussion. However, the sharing of those diverse theories and empirical approaches about teaching and learning comes with a serious challenge: Are we really talking about the same? How can different views and approaches in SoTL be integrated in a solid and scientific way? Aren’t we leaving the academic ground, if we compare and relate e.g. psychological, sociological, quantitative, and qualitative statements without hesitation and second thoughts?

The presented paper proposes a theoretical framework for the integration of diverse theoretical and methodical views on teaching and learning. It offers SoTL professionals an approach to mediate and moderate the diversity of concepts and theories in the SoTL community. The framework relies on a general theory of action which is rooted in the sociology of knowledge by Alfred Schütz, Peter Berger, and Thomas Luckmann. The integral part is the lifeworld concept as a place to produce and successfully share meaning about the world. This approach will be developed into the field of SoTL, exemplified by the chosen topic "requirements for successful learning". After a brief introduction to the theoretical framework, the paper presents results from a qualitative content analysis of 17 widespread frame models about successful learning. This serves as an example for the integration of diverse approaches. Participants are encouraged to engage in self-experiment afterwards.

While practical application of the proposed framework within SoTL discussions is possible, the main goal of the presentation is to raise the awareness for theoretical grounding in order to avoid the critique of eclecticism.

Expected learning outcomes are i) reflection on the limitations of scientific reasoning, ii) basic knowledge about the usefullness of a general action theory for the integration of diverse approaches, concepts and empirical results about teaching and learning, iii) motivation for further inquiry and critical thinking about the theoretical integration of thoughts, meaning, and SoTL results.

There seems to be an increasing demand in the liberal arts education to focus on “workforce preparation” as a central part of the undergraduate experience, while also continuing to prepare graduates for democratic citizenship. While these objectives appear conflicting these aims can be integrated. This paper explores how the designing of a capstone experience can be a catalyst for re-imagining a curriculum to focus on career and civic preparation. Authors will discuss the research results of a comparative study of capstone models, along with a participatory design process involving students and community partners to reimagine the Global Studies curriculum at Providence College, a liberal arts institution in the US. The presentation will include essential reflective practices for creating a culture of learning, including the use of democratic education, community engagement, and electronic portfolios, and invite participants to reflect upon the civic dimensions of their disciplines.

 

Post-secondary institutions are rapidly adopting Learning Analytics (LA) to enhance student learning, retention and graduation rates – commonly referred to in the US as student success. Establishing a data-guided campus-citizenry requires collaboration amongst administrators, faculty, departments and support-units. In this workshop we will engage participants in a top-down, bottom-up and middle-out model that supports faculty development and institutional change at the course, program, and institutional levels. During this interactive session participants will explore how large and complex data housed in student information systems can empower faculty to conduct scholarly research about teaching, learning, and student success, expanding the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning beyond the classroom. We have been achieving this goal by establishing a Learning Analytics Fellows program.

Over the past 4-years of our Learning Analytics Fellows program we have discovered that making use of big data and predictive models can augment the accuracy of academic advising while also improving success for underrepresented minority students. The research our Learning Analytics Fellows have undertaken has also uncovered factors the influence students in making appropriate and often critical choices on their pathway toward graduation and a successful career. A major purpose of the program is to shift faculty perspectives on teaching and learning. The new knowledge produced by the research moves along a continuum from the micro level to the meso, macro and mega levels (classroom, program, institution and career levels)(Williams et al., 2013).

Collaborating in small group discussions, participants will complete a worksheet that guides them through our model of change process. The model is an expansion of work already taking place in our teaching center and leverages the knowledge and expertise of faculty, staff and administrators who are already involved in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning at our institution. Participants will identify the how the scholarship of student success can be adopted within their current Scholarship of Teaching and Learning communities and initiatives, which is exactly how we started our program. Then they will assess the value of adopting our change model and identify strategies for creating a LA-Fellows program on their campuses. Participants will also have the opportunity to determine the resources required to establish a data-informed, student success culture and how to address some of the more common pitfalls and barriers to establishing such a program.

Domestic violence is a global, gendered issue that continues to grow at an alarming rate (New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2016; World Health Organisation, 2000). Those who leave violent relationships face health, legal, parenting and financial challenges (Ambuel, 2013; Mertin, Moyle, & Veremeenko, 2014). Despite these challenges, many successfully pursue new ventures in self-improvement (Chronister, Wettersten & Brown, 2004). One such endeavor includes studying at higher education institutions. Such students have received only scant attention within the literature, even though they may encounter obstacles along their journey (Lewer, in progress). In our tertiary learning communities, university staff act as important mediators between these students and the transition into their initiation of tertiary studies. Project ADVOCATE (Awareness of Domestic Violence on Campus at Tertiary Education) focuses on these students who have experienced domestic violence before enrollment at university. The project will engage university staff in sharing their awareness of students who are affected by domestic violence, how to best provide support, resources available, and suggestions for professional development and changes to policy and procedures that could assist students in their learning journey.

 

Engaging and consulting students as a natural part of the cycle of continuous improvement can elicit meaningful and valuable insights into the curriculum design process and provide a great deal of insight into courses they have recently completed. Students’ critical feedback can lead to improvements that may not have otherwise been considered, and their input can be far greater than the standard feedback that is currently sought. Feedback is often collected but not often used as a catalyst for change in the ways that it could be employed.

At universities throughout the world, an increasing number of courses are being developed for delivery in flipped and blended modes. Universities have directed considerable resources toward course re-design and the professional development of university teachers at all ranks, but far less focus is being placed on supporting students as they adapt their study to this fundamental change in ways of learning.

Some of these blended courses have been in place for a number of years, with student feedback an integral part of the course review process. In 2014, a faculty at a large Australian university began a concentrated initiative to convert all first year courses for delivery in a flipped or blended mode. A recent review of the feedback for these courses from the past three years provided a number of insights and directions for curriculum change and student support.

This paper presents insights gained from data gathered from student surveys regarding their experiences of blended learning, specifically aspects that they found useful as well as their opinions of required course improvements. Comments from students were sought concerning several areas relating to course satisfaction, support mechanisms and organisation through a standard university student feedback process. Many comments received related to the quality of teaching and this impact cannot be dismissed when considering the effectiveness of course delivery. Other comments were more perceptive regarding the organisation of the courses and the support required by students to be successful in this mode of learning, providing significant insights into course improvement. Universities need to develop broad and deep suites of support mechanisms that are offered over multiple modes (online, face-to-face, and blended) to aid these students in fundamentally reconceptualising their approaches to study. This paper suggests that engaging student voices in all phases of course design will substantially improve student success in blended modes of learning.

We can engage and support the adolescents we teach by asking them what kinds of instructional materials, teacher practices and classroom structures helped them learn best. It is important to give individuals voice because learner insights are rarely sought yet can be profoundly informative (Groves & Welsh, 2010). Additionally, scant research has examined the role of the math textbook from the student perspective (Thomas, 2013). Determining the quality, readability, and willingness of students to actually read the text is critical information. There is little research that documents the text features that students like and use, or even how they engage with their textbooks. Now with the rush to technology-based learning, text use becomes even more expensive and complicated and the perspective of, or benefit to, the learner is still in question (Cheung & Slavin, 2013). Therefore, in order to determine the learner perspective, a literacy and math collaboration solicited reflections on learning math from 1,212 students. Items in an online, anonymous, semi-structured survey were used to gather information. Included were both open and closed response formats (Fowler, 2014).

Survey highlights indicated that a majority of respondents (57.54%) preferred to learn math with a traditional print textbook, rather than digital (24.56%) or electronic (16.14%) because there was less distractibility, less eyestrain, and no connectivity issues. In qualitative feedback, learners emphasized the advantages of a being able to navigate a physical text and their preference for its tactile properties (e.g., “Something about being able to touch the book and flip pages helps me process the information better” (Q35). Their tendency to highlight and write notes in a book was another prominent comment. Regardless of text type, the text features identified as most helpful to learners for better understanding concepts were: examples, practice problems, answers, explanations, definitions, visuals, and vocabulary (Q20).

Despite their affinity for a print textbook, 30% of learners reported that they "never" or "rarely" read their math book (Q32). This may be due to the fact that when providing qualitative descriptions of how they best learned math, respondents lauded the value of collaboration with “small groups” or “peers.” Overwhelmingly, these learners declared that their learning occurred “with the help of a good teacher,” one who “explained,” “demonstrated,” “answered questions,” who “knows the material,” and is “excited to teach math” (Q38). Perhaps the billions spent annually on textbooks would be better spent on teachers.

The purpose of this study is to investigate how students of university pedagogy, most of whom work as teachers in university, understand the role of preconceptions in learning process and how they pay attention to students’ prior knowledge in their own teaching. Prior knowledge, that is necessary prerequisite for all conceptual learning may either ease learning when it is in unison with the new knowledge to be learned or it may hinder or even prevent learning, if there are discrepancies between new knowledge and one’s previous conceptions. Teachers’ conceptions about learning and teaching form the background for teachers’ approaches i.e. practices and strategies which will be implemented in their own teaching. Therefore, it is essential to understand, which kinds of conceptions university teachers have, in order to improve higher education.

A total of 66 participants attended to this study utilizing the pretest-posttest design with a digital university pedagogy course between. The measurements consisted of Likert scale measures about the role of prior knowledge in learning, using of activating methods in one’s own teaching and items about approaches to teaching. There were video interpretation tasks, in which participants were asked to interpret short teaching and learning situations.

It became evident that higher scores in understanding the role of prior knowledge in learning positively correlated with better scores from video interpretations (p = .012) and with the score about using of activating methods in one’s own teaching (p < .000). In contrast, higher scores in understanding the role of prior knowledge in learning negatively correlated with the content-centered teaching approach (p = .035) and with the sum scores of “no time to activate” (p = .030). In addition, higher amount of misconceptions related to learning and teaching based on the video interpretations positively correlated with the sum score of content-centered teaching approach (p = .013).

Participants' understanding related to learning and teaching based on the scores of video interpretations increased during the study phase (t(52) = -.2998, p = .004) and participants misconceptions decreased during the study (t(52) = 4.069, p < .001). Furthermore, the amount of participants with misconceptions related to learning and teaching based on the video interpretations decreased remarkably from the pretest (n = 25) to the posttest (n = 9).

The preliminary results of the pretest showed interesting correlations between different aspects of learning and teaching. Based on the results, pedagogical suggestions are discussed.

A key characteristic of expert performance is continuous learning and development through a process of ‘Deliberate Practice’ (Ericsson et al, 1993) or ‘Progressive Problem Solving’ (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993). These concepts have been explored empirically to identify how they are expressed in a broad range of professions including athletics, music, the arts and business (van de Wiel et al, 2004). Whilst there has been some research on expertise in relation to teachers in secondary schools (e.g. Berliner, 2001; Tsui, 2003), there appears to be little so far in relation to teachers in higher education (HE).

Similarly, there has been considerable interest in ways of thinking and practising (WTP) in the disciplines (e.g., arising from Meyer & Land, 2003; Pace & Middendorf, 2004); however, research into HE teachers’ WTP is relatively sparse. More in-depth work in this area would provide useful evidence to inform professional development programmes (Saroyan & Trigwell, 2015). Furthermore, Ericsson (2017) notes that, in a variety of domains, it is has been shown that professional development activities which align to the criteria for Deliberate Practice in that field lead to enhancements in performance.

Characteristics of expertise and WTP, therefore, potentially offer interesting approaches to conceptualising teaching and its development in higher education. The consideration of such approaches provides opportunities for different types of conversations about the learning cultures of those who teach in higher education and the role of scholarship. It draws the focus of faculty development away from formal training and events, and offers a complementary alternative to the concept of reflective practice (Moon, 2001).

This paper will briefly introduce some common models for the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance exploring their potential relevance to teaching in higher education. In addition, emergent findings will be shared from the author’s research into expert educators’ approaches to learning about and improving their teaching practice.

There has been a recent surge of research studying the importance and role of instructor presence on student learning in online learning environments (CCRC, 2013; Creasman, 2012; Kolowich, 2010; Morrison, 2012) but not face-to-face. Furthermore, research that has examined instructor presence in face-to-face environments have done so in “traditional” style classrooms, not ones specifically designed for active learning (Buskist, Sikorski, Buckley, & Saville, 2012; LeFebvre & Allen, 2014; Witt, Wheeless, & Allen, 2004). Our newly designed Active Learning Center presented an optimal opportunity to investigate the relationship between instructor presence on student-reported learning and intrinsic motivation for learning in a face-to-face, non-traditional style classroom.

During the summer of 2017, we designed and installed a brand new active learning center (ALC). With this new addition and “tool” for faculty to better implement learner-centered teaching strategies, we began wondering how taking a course in an actual active learning center may affect instructor-student rapport and intrinsic motivation for learning because of proposed increased instructor-presence. Instructor presence was measured with the Teacher Behaviors Checklist (Keely, Smith, & Buskist, 2006), the Professor-Student Rapport Scale (Wilson, Ryan, & Pugh, 2010), and the Nonverbal Immediacy Behavior Scale (Richmond, McCroskey, & Johnson, 2003). Additional instruments administered included a Demographic Questionnaire, the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (www.selfdeterminationtheory.org), and measures for student self-reported learning gains. “Instructor presence” (Buskist et al., 2012) in an active learning classroom was predicted to be positively correlated with student self-reported learning and intrinsic motivation.

Session participants will learn about research on instructor-presence, instructor-student rapport, and the data we collected from a multidisciplinary group of undergraduates who experienced an entire semester in our new active learning center. Following this initial presentation, participants will be invited to engage in discussion about how the results from this study can inform educational development programming on their own campuses.

This research supports three of the four conference theme threads: a culture for learning, a culture of learners, and a culture that learns. Each of the variables under study helps us to better understand individual components of the learning environment (i.e., instructor characteristics, learner characteristics, and learning space characteristics) that, together, may foster a culture of learning one course at a time.

Cultures shape spatial environments and get shaped by them. The lecture hall can be viewed as being shaped by an educational culture of considering information transfer as paramount while at the same time fostering this culture. The spatial environment has been termed the third educator, with the instructor and the fellow students being the other two educators.

The supportive role of the spatial environment and, hence, the third educator, receives special attention in Student Centered Activating Learning Environment with Upside-down Pedagogies (SCALE-UP) where students are seated at group tables. This arrangement removes spatial barriers to students’ interaction and collaboration which are typical for traditional classrooms. Moreover the spatial arrangement signals to the students that cooperation and co-construction of knowledge is essential in this class. It also signals that the instructor is not the central resource for learning since in a SCALE-UP room there is no front anymore.

The spatial environment also signals messages to the instructor. Taking the proverb of the third educator literally, teaching in such an environment will be conceptualized as co-teaching with this third educator (as well as with the second – the students) in this contribution. This notion also best describes the instructor’s experience. This contribution reports on the shifts observed and experienced in an automata theory class which moved to a SCALE-UP environment after having been taught in a traditional lecture hall for years. The implementation of SCALE-UP could be characterized as mild. It basically added the spatial arrangement characteristic for SCALE-UP to a class regularly being taught in a Just-in-Time-Teaching setting. Other features characteristic for SCALE-UP such as arranging fixed group membership and supporting group reflection have not been implemented.

SCALE-UP has recently gained considerable popularity and has proven to be effective for student learning. This contribution will add another data point to these findings. It draws on available data such as class attendance, performance on formative assessment tasks and exams, and student feedback to the instructor as well as the instructors’ experiences. These data consistently show an increase in student learning with the strongest effect being a considerable decrease of the failure rate and a statistically significant increase of the attendance rate. Given the rather mild implementation of SCALE-UP in this class it can be concluded that a mere (but deliberate) change of the spatial setting can contribute noticeably to the learning of both students and instructors.